SAMPAYAN V VASQUEZ (2005)

J. GARCIA
Agusan Del Sur (from MTC of Bayugan and Sibagat)

ISSUE:

FACTS:
- Siblings Crispulo Vazquez and Florencia VasquezGIlsnao filed a compaint for forcible entry against
Cesar Sampayan in 1992 before the MCTC of
Bayugan and Sibagat, ADS
- They alleged that Sampayan entered and
occupied a parcel of land, through strategy and
stealth, and built a house thereon without their
knowledge, consent or authority
VASQUEZES:
- their mother Cristita Quita was the owner and
actual possessor of the land since 1957
- after her death, they became co-owners and
lawful possessor of the lot
- in 1992, Sampayan entered the lot and built a
house thereon while they were absent from the
lot
- despite repeated demands, Sampayan failed and
refused to vacate the lot
SAMPAYAN:
- neither the Vasquezes or their mother have ever
been in possession of the lot
- he asked and was given permission therefor by
Maria Ybanez, the overseer of the true owners of
the lots (Sps. Terrado, who were temporarily
residing at Cebu for business) to enter the lot
- that claim long prescribed: lot possessed and
declared for tax by Sps. Oriol in 1960, sps Oriol
sold to Sps Terrado, to Manolito Occida and
Juiana Sambale-Occida both vendees possess
lands up to present
MCTC judge conducted an ocular inspection
- found the house of Sampayan; dilapidated house
Peter Siscon; a portion of the house of Macario
Noynay, husband of Dionisia Noynay, witness for
Sampayan
- the improvements could never have been
introduced by the Vasquezes nor by their mother.
But by vendees
- nothing can be seen that, once upon a time, the
Vasquezes had been in possession of the land
- Allegation that Quita was in possession naked
claim, unsupported by evid
- Sampayan had been in possession of the land for
more than one year; the action of the Vasquezes
if any is accion publiciana or plenaria de
possession
-

MCTC dismissed the complaint

RTC reversed MCTC: Cristita was among the
oppositors in the Cadastral Case covering the lot;
It was Cristita who was in actual prior physical
possession of the lot

CA affirmed RTC
a)

b)

WON the MCTC had jurisdiction over

the complaint given that during hearing
it found that accion publiciana and not
forcible entry is the proper action
Will complaint for forcible entry in this
case prosper?

HELD:
1. YES

Sarmiento v. CA
o
Necessary that complaint embody
such statement of facts as brings
the party clearly within class of
cases for which statutes provide a
remedy
for the MCTC to acquire jurisdiction over a forcible
entry case, it is enough that the complaint avers
the jurisdictional facts:
a. that the plaintiff had physical possession;
and
b. that he was deprived thereof by the
defendant through force, intimidation,
threats, strategy and stealth
the finding during the hearing which rendered
improper an action for forcible entry cannot
deprive MCTC of its jurisdiction over the case
uncontested findings of MCTC judge
o
predecessors-in-interest have
introduced improvements (caimito
trees, coconut tress, and others)
o
sworn affidavit of Noynay (resident
from 1960) that neither
respondents nor their mother
possessed lot she is a neighbor
c) NO
Pet argues that proper remedy is AP or PDP
juris of RTC, not MCTC
In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must
prove that he was in prior possession of the land,
and that he was deprived thereof (F, I, T, strategy,
stealth)
Absence of prior physical possession by the
plaintiff in a forcible entry case warrants the
dismissal of his complaint
The Vasquezes had never been in possession of
the land
Cristitas being an oppostior in the cadastral case
covering the lot does not by itself establish prior
physical possession; not all oppositors are actual
possessors of the lots subject thereof